New efficiency dividend to gouge the agencies

shadow boxer said :

People get more money for being accountable. If you just want to fix and build other peoples solutions then $50 an hour seems reasonable.

Some would argue that a large part of the reason for using external technical resources is the accompanying outsourcing of accountability for the functions they perform.

Where did I say that ?

People get more money for being accountable. If you just want to fix and build other peoples solutions then $50 an hour seems reasonable.

This would have some big benefits for the APS, The EL-1 technical jobs would become attractive again, knowledge would filter back in house and massive savings would be made on the bottom line.

AGIMO should make it so……

shadow boxer said :

Ahh another technical contractor who knows everything but is not prepared to do the hard yards in a management position, just wants the pay without the accountability.

They are a dime a dozen these days. What the PS should do first is band together and agree that no technical contractor will ever be paid more than $50 an hour. Modern day plumbers.

Yeah, just leave everything to the bureaucrats.

Nice one, dingus

I did some temp work with one of the big four accountancy firms last year and every morning there’d be three or four employees arriving from Sydney or Melbourne and the same number leaving Canberra for Sydney or Melbourne. The company had acquired a Canberra-based firm and, in order for the transition to go smoothly, a manager was flown in from Perth every Monday and flown back every Friday. They did make good use of teleconferencing but they must’ve been spending many thousands of dollars per week in airfares. Never assume it’s only the APS that know how to waste money.

schmeah said :

My group manager(SES 2) has been on the following work related trips in the past 4 weeks:

Vietnam
NZ
Mexico

Each trip requires a business class booking and a 5 star hotel.

Leaving aside whether the trips were actually needed, and also the fact that 3 trips in a few weeks isn’t necessarily a heap of fun, why do SES fly business still these days? My company used to have us all fly economy for flights less than 10 hours, and business above that, but as of about 3 years ago its economy for everyone, everywhere. It’s a bummer but given its about 1/3 of the fare, it’s the difference between going or not going at all. The APS are behind the times. I laugh when I see the SES officers in business on short domestic flights – its nothing but a status wank.

And I should add that in most of my dealings with APS agencies, I have seen obvious inefficiency and waste, so my heart doesn’t bleed when they’re told to take a haircut on costs.

p1 said :

2. The “any public servant can do any job” concept. It is totally false as soon as you want even a low level of specialisation, but becomes ridiculous when you think about actual specialists.

I don’t necessarily think the selection criteria system is the problem, but the way it is being used, and the lack of profession specific pay grades doesn’t help. Of course, out sourcing everything but contract management positions makes it more likely to succeed….

You can’t really divorce the selection criteria system, the lack of specific pay grades and the ‘any pube can do any job’ concept from each other like that – they all stem from the same source.
Unless the philosophy behind how the whole system is organized is replaced, nothing substantive will change.

EvanJames said :

as others here have said, the structure and entrenched habits of the APS make it difficult for it to save money. The top-heavy nature of it is quite marked, all those SES and EL people. You end up with a tree of people whose main purpose seems to be to have meetings with each other and sign off on things, which progress their way up the tree. Flattening this out, reducing the numbers of people who sign off on things, and increasing the numbers of people who actually DO stuff would result in myriad benefits, but who is going to implement this?

The APS Commissioner has been writing very good articles and giving speeches (for years) on how to steamline APS recruitment. And has anything changed? No. They all cleave to the incredibly labour intensive address-the-selection-criteria-hold-panel-interviews-contact-referees-write-up-report and hope like hell The Delegate approves it. Does this get the best person for the job? No, it gets the best person at addressing selection criteria and fronting panel interviews.

The pollies don’t help. I was working a short stint at Health a while back, and watched with astonishment how all communications to the minister had to be answered. I watched a Grad and an EL1 waste days drafting a reply to an aggreived constituent who while in hospital was horrified to discover that the Special K they served was not actual Special K but some inferior brand. A few years back, stupid letters like this got a form response and the complaint was flicked to the entity that had generated it (the hospital in this case). Why on earth are large numbers of highly-paid staff wasting days on this rubbish? And the responses have to work their way up the line, being signed off by even more highly paid people.

Your post I think directly addresses three of what I think are the APS’s biggest problems:

1. Top heavy nature + levels of decision making. This has evolved because the public is always outraged by stupid decisions, and a history of various types of casual rorting (mostly well in the part) made people risk adverse and the system ridgid.

2. The “any public servant can do any job” concept. It is totally false as soon as you want even a low level of specialisation, but becomes ridiculous when you think about actual specialists. I don’t necessarily think the selection criteria system is the problem, but the way it is being used, and the lack of profession specific pay grades doesn’t help. Of course, out sourcing everything but contract management positions makes it more likely to succeed….

3. The fact that so much of what happens in departments is driven my ministers and their desire not offend people. I know my department (which shall remain nameless) only just stopped replying to every single letter sent when some whacky group asks their members to send a copy of the same letter in about whatever they are hating on this week.

Attention all public servants:

Any one of you reading this comment during work hours, resign immediately. Problem solved.

There’s your 2.5% efficiency dividend (and then some)…

as others here have said, the structure and entrenched habits of the APS make it difficult for it to save money. The top-heavy nature of it is quite marked, all those SES and EL people. You end up with a tree of people whose main purpose seems to be to have meetings with each other and sign off on things, which progress their way up the tree. Flattening this out, reducing the numbers of people who sign off on things, and increasing the numbers of people who actually DO stuff would result in myriad benefits, but who is going to implement this?

The APS Commissioner has been writing very good articles and giving speeches (for years) on how to steamline APS recruitment. And has anything changed? No. They all cleave to the incredibly labour intensive address-the-selection-criteria-hold-panel-interviews-contact-referees-write-up-report and hope like hell The Delegate approves it. Does this get the best person for the job? No, it gets the best person at addressing selection criteria and fronting panel interviews.

The pollies don’t help. I was working a short stint at Health a while back, and watched with astonishment how all communications to the minister had to be answered. I watched a Grad and an EL1 waste days drafting a reply to an aggreived constituent who while in hospital was horrified to discover that the Special K they served was not actual Special K but some inferior brand. A few years back, stupid letters like this got a form response and the complaint was flicked to the entity that had generated it (the hospital in this case). Why on earth are large numbers of highly-paid staff wasting days on this rubbish? And the responses have to work their way up the line, being signed off by even more highly paid people.

I am confused by this thread.

Am I an overpaid public servant who flexes off at the end of the week, or an underpaid public servant who should go private sector?

basketofcat said :

I haven’t experienced it but my parents did in 1996. The stress and pressure was unimaginable, especially for those who wanted to be in the APS not for the salary but for the work. I’m sure there were and are many people in the APS who care more about the impact and effect they have on Australian society than they do about their take-home salary. How would you feel if you were in that position and your job, your raison d’etre, was forcibly taken from you? Sure, they could work (/ have worked) in the private sector but their work satisfaction would probably be lower, and all the investment in their career skills lost.

Your parents sound like great people. PS staff who actually get to intereact with and see tangible results for the public are in the minority (im not counting nurses, police etc here.) I have experienced the opposite moving to private where my training has been better, results are right in front of me. Theres a bunch of NGOs and NFPs in Canberra that would love to have the heart on their sleeve types that get swallowed up in the APS.

Do you work for one of the myriad borgs operating in Canberra? how’s the serenity? ever had your position off shored? did you cry foul and say only an Australian is capable of doing your job? do you ever ask yourself why any private sector industry operates in Australia at all when it’d be much cheaper and more efficient to import it?

Borgs? My work is not attached to the ACT or government in any way if thats what you mean. We just had a round of forced redundancies actually. Accept them as a fact of life and move on. Businesses are in the game to make money not keep bums on chairs. No tears shed from me. If the APS was run run more like a business and less like a… childcare, minding people and keeping them safe from the horror of life outside Canberra there would be redundancies every year.

I have no doubt ill be off-shored or redundancied in the next 10 years if i hang around long enough for a cheaper Asian/Indian worker overseas. Care factor – Zero. I’d do it if I was managing the bottom line of my company.

Bluey said :

To everyone who called BS. Go back to your lattes and afternoon teas.

Most public servants wouldnt have a clue what a forced redundancy even looks like. They cost MEGA $$$ to the department to boot positions. If I was given one though, AWESOME. Its Canberra, theres always work so take the $$$ and get a private sector job or move somewhere else or work part time for a while. Heaps of options but change IS terrifying to public servants so I understand your fear.

I haven’t experienced it but my parents did in 1996. The stress and pressure was unimaginable, especially for those who wanted to be in the APS not for the salary but for the work. I’m sure there were and are many people in the APS who care more about the impact and effect they have on Australian society than they do about their take-home salary. How would you feel if you were in that position and your job, your raison d’etre, was forcibly taken from you? Sure, they could work (/ have worked) in the private sector but their work satisfaction would probably be lower, and all the investment in their career skills lost.

Bluey said :

Suck it up Canberra, multi national corps go through this process yearly usually with 1000s of layoffs globally. Why should the public sector be a special little bubble all insulated and warm from the cold truth of efficiency and performance?

Do you work for one of the myriad borgs operating in Canberra? how’s the serenity? ever had your position off shored? did you cry foul and say only an Australian is capable of doing your job? do you ever ask yourself why any private sector industry operates in Australia at all when it’d be much cheaper and more efficient to import it?

shadow boxer said :

Ahh another technical contractor who knows everything but is not prepared to do the hard yards in a management position, just wants the pay without the accountability.

They are a dime a dozen these days. What the PS should do first is band together and agree that no technical contractor will ever be paid more than $50 an hour. Modern day plumbers.

Neither a contractor, nor a public servant. Have been both previously however. To be a manager all you have to do is hang around long enough for one to leave, ‘act’ in a role for 6 months waiting for the selection criteria (more BS) to be tailored to you and have your mates on the selection panel go through to process of wasting other peoples time who’ve actually applied for the role only to find you the ‘suit suitable.’ Even if the other guy had 3 years experience and a relevant degree. Its who not what you know that will get you everywhere in the APS.

Promoting on ‘doing your time’ and internal vacancy filling and not hiring or promoting on actual ability is the reason the public service is in the dissarray it is.

Dont get me wrong. When I have kids and need to flex off for dentist appts or take extra sick days for sick kids an APS job will be top of my list. Milk the crap out of it, the public sector unions done a great job on all those perks so use em. Just dont whinge when reality comes knocking and threatens your little bubble.

Ahh another technical contractor who knows everything but is not prepared to do the hard yards in a management position, just wants the pay without the accountability.

They are a dime a dozen these days. What the PS should do first is band together and agree that no technical contractor will ever be paid more than $50 an hour. Modern day plumbers.

To everyone who called BS. Go back to your lattes and afternoon teas.

Most public servants wouldnt have a clue what a forced redundancy even looks like. They cost MEGA $$$ to the department to boot positions. If I was given one though, AWESOME. Its Canberra, theres always work so take the $$$ and get a private sector job or move somewhere else or work part time for a while. Heaps of options but change IS terrifying to public servants so I understand your fear.

There are 22 year olds in EL1+ roles, you cannot possibly tell me that they have either the experience or the development to be the most effective people in the role.

EAs, secretaries whatever you want to call them are usually APS4/5 Ive even met some 6’s who sort email and take phone calls. Clearly worth the 70k salary. I should quit my technical job and sit on my arse and sort email all day then flex off the last hour because I showed up on time all week so i earnt it.

Whoever posted there needs to be an external review and then an external group brought in is right. Management is clearly not going to cut itself but thats where the bulk of salary dollars go.

Strip the guts right out of it say I. Anyone who disagrees is either a special exception or an ~EL1 afraid that their cushy position might just end up cut.

Suck it up Canberra, multi national corps go through this process yearly usually with 1000s of layoffs globally. Why should the public sector be a special little bubble all insulated and warm from the cold truth of efficiency and performance?

U

schmeah said :

My group manager(SES 2) has been on the following work related trips in the past 4 weeks:

Vietnam
NZ
Mexico

You probably wouldnt have enjoyed it if you had to go on 3 business trips in 4 weeks. Whether those trips were necessary is a different issue.

The reason why there arent many APS 1 -3 any more is because the government doesnt actually do very much ‘basic’ work anymore – it used to run a telephone company and have ditch diggers, it used to hire cleaners and telegraph operators and maintenance people and security guards and apprentices. It does none of that now, its all outsourced. So the government still ‘hires’ (pays for) these people, but they arent on the PS books. There are very few PAs (secretaries). Most jobs require a degree (I’m not sure of the percentage, but I imagine over 50% of PS jobs require a uni degree). So you would have to expect the ‘senior’ to ‘junior’ staff ratios will be very different to 15 years ago.

There are some PS employees who would not survive in the private sector. But there are certainly many who would thrive, and (particularly in technical areas) many who are underpaid. I know in Defence they frequently advertise engineering or technical jobs knowing that the salary they can offer is about 30% below market, and of course dont get any applicants. Secretaries in the private sector can earn $50k+.

People work in the PS for many reasons, but job security and reduced work pressure is one; and this is being lost. Why stay in the PS, for less money, crappy offices and no gratitude, if you end up working just as long and with no greater job security than the private sector?

I work in the private sector, so there is no self interest here. In fact, in my experience the greatest problem with the PS is that there is a significant lack of experienced APS6/EL1s in many departments – probably due to hiring freezes/reductions 6-12 years ago. As a result, you now have 30 year olds acting as EL2s. Cutting more staff will likely lead to a further loss of senior and experienced workers.

My group manager(SES 2) has been on the following work related trips in the past 4 weeks:

Vietnam
NZ
Mexico

Each trip requires a business class booking and a 5 star hotel. So, I’m assuming these junkets come with a budget of about 8-10K each .. any demand by the government to cut back on travel falls on deaf ears. As a humble APS employee (who hasn’t been promoted in almost 3 years) watching the government persist in stripping back the public service is getting very stressful and very tiring.

To hell with the surplus – the Liberals are attacking them for pursuing it and they’ll go to hell in a hand basket if they fail to achieve it .. which, to be honest, is very likely.

What about doing away with departments that compete directly with small business… DEWR, ATO, Centrelink and others have video production departments competing against small businesses trying to survive – what other private enterprises are being funded by Govt ?

Absurd and unnecessary.

shadow boxer said :

He does have a point about the APS 1’s and 2’s though.

Interestingly, my department is actually attempting to shift the APS1-6 : EL1-2 ratio back in Cavour of the lower paid worker bees. Makes sense to me. EL’s are supposed to be managers of people, not be doing every job themselves.

Bluey said :

dtc said :

well, why would people stay in the (relatively) underpaid public service

Almost spat my drink all over my screen when I read that gem.

About time the top heavy beauracracy was culled. Too many chefs not enough kitchen hands. Bring back APS1s and 2s and stop paying 70k for secretaries and generic admin roles.

Anyone who has worked private sector in canberra scoffs at your ‘underpaid’ comments. Maybe 1/10 public servants work hard for their salary the rest coast through on their flex time and numnerous leave allowances.

Bullshit.

+ another Bullshit.

realman said :

What about doing away with departments within departments that duplicate private enterprise.

DEWR has a giant corporate video production department – so does centrelink, casa and ATO from what I gather – whats that all about, competing with small business ?

Maybe all the federal departments could get into mining CSG or building cars or something like that.

Where do you stop though? I’m sure there are plenty of other functions within departments that duplicate what the private sector does, do we outsource all of them? Let’s not forget how well that went when there was a big push to have IT services outsourced…

Tetranitrate said :

It’s practically guaranteed that ONLY those positions where real work is done will be cut.

What we really need is a massive review of how the APS operates….

That would be the Moran Review carried out last year. It actually had some really good ideas about how to streamline and improve efficiency across the public service. Things that could save the APS the money they need to save without sacrificing positions where the real work is done.

How much could we get for the various department buildings still owned by the Federal Government? I’m sure there’s at least one or two left in Canberra. Not many, but perhaps it’d be enough to make a dent in this year’s deficit.

(alternatively, how much could we save in the long term if the departments were in buildings owned by the Federal Government? hang on…)

What about doing away with departments within departments that duplicate private enterprise.

DEWR has a giant corporate video production department – so does centrelink, casa and ATO from what I gather – whats that all about, competing with small business ?

Maybe all the federal departments could get into mining CSG or building cars or something like that.

for those who describe us public servants as lazy, please stop using such bad generalisations. most people I work with, do incredibly long hours and are totally dedicated to their job.

I agree that the PS as a whole needs to find greater efficiencies, starting with current IT systems, not something based in the 20th century.

however to make savage cuts all at once is completely unacceptable, and affects those who rely on an income to support their family.

time for politicians of all persuasions to pull their heads in, and think smarter, not looking to save a quick dollar.

Don’t panic. Markus Mannheim wrote an article in the CT that warned that 20% of the SES are going to leave and another not insignificant percentage of the APS will retire and cash in their CSS pensions.

Suggest huddling in the agencies dealing with issues that could get/are getting the government in trouble over the next two years and will have $$ thrown their way. Are new big dollars headed in any department’s way courtesy of Tony Windsor?

shadow boxer said :

He does have a point about the APS 1’s and 2’s though.

We have 1’s (trainees.. i.e. going through tafe) and 2’s (indigenous cadets)

There’s little point trying to demand an efficiency dividend without comprehensive reform, sure the bureaucracy is top heavy, but if you then go and instruct that very bureaucracy to ‘cut costs’, it’s not going to be those at or anywhere near the top that go.

It’s practically guaranteed that ONLY those positions where real work is done will be cut.

What we really need is a massive review of how the APS operates, mainly by people from outside and/or overseas who have minimal professional or personal connections.
They need to throw out the ILS bullshit and other restrictions to entry, and hire based on criteria specifically relevant to the role in question.
At the moment they can’t even staff a call centre for less than 50k a head, it’s absurd. Not to mention the inability to hold highly skilled IT staff since the whole philosophy behind the pay-grades doesn’t really recognize technical skills as being valuable in comparison to leadership/management skills.

PantsMan said :

shadow boxer said :

He does have a point about the APS 1’s and 2’s though.

Wrong: APS 1’s & 2’s cannot do nothing “strategically”. That’s why there are none.

Lol, what about holistically, surely they could do something holistically ?

shadow boxer said :

He does have a point about the APS 1’s and 2’s though.

Wrong: APS 1’s & 2’s cannot do nothing “strategically”. That’s why there are none.

I think we could make the PS a little more efficent, I know a lot of people who seem to joke about filling in htier days

He does have a point about the APS 1’s and 2’s though.

amarooresident3 said :

Bluey said :

dtc said :

well, why would people stay in the (relatively) underpaid public service

…..Maybe 1/10 public servants work hard for their salary the rest coast through on their flex time and numnerous leave allowances.

Your argument is weakened when you resort to stereotypes to prove your point. I’ve worked in both the private and public sector. Most public servants earn their money in my experience, as do most private sector people.

What he said. While I have met very few public servants I would consider underpaid, your argument is just the usual BS. Anyone with generic office job skills who are working in the private sector, considers themselves underpaid while whinging about public servants, but doesn’t bother to get themselves something better is stupid. Or they are forgetting some of the )not necessarily financial benefits of the private sector.

Bluey said :

dtc said :

well, why would people stay in the (relatively) underpaid public service

Almost spat my drink all over my screen when I read that gem.

About time the top heavy beauracracy was culled. Too many chefs not enough kitchen hands. Bring back APS1s and 2s and stop paying 70k for secretaries and generic admin roles.

Anyone who has worked private sector in canberra scoffs at your ‘underpaid’ comments. Maybe 1/10 public servants work hard for their salary the rest coast through on their flex time and numnerous leave allowances.

Your argument is weakened when you resort to stereotypes to prove your point. I’ve worked in both the private and public sector. Most public servants earn their money in my experience, as do most private sector people.

dtc said :

well, why would people stay in the (relatively) underpaid public service

Almost spat my drink all over my screen when I read that gem.

About time the top heavy beauracracy was culled. Too many chefs not enough kitchen hands. Bring back APS1s and 2s and stop paying 70k for secretaries and generic admin roles.

Anyone who has worked private sector in canberra scoffs at your ‘underpaid’ comments. Maybe 1/10 public servants work hard for their salary the rest coast through on their flex time and numnerous leave allowances.

When an agency spends more than 70 per cent of its budget on staff, then the only real way to save 2.5 per cent is to cut staff. Now we all know there is no money for forced redundancies (these cost a fair bit more than voluntary ones) so not replacing staff that leave and offering ‘business as usual’ voluntary redundancies is the go.

Problem with this is that in many agencies you are already at the point of saying to the minister – we now have to stop doing things we used to do because there are just not enough staff. What services would you like stopped? Of course the reply is don’t stop doing anything…..

So agencies cut and hope for the best. They move staff from one overworked area to another depending on the weekly (or daily) focus of the MO and hope like hell they don’t stuff up in a big way.

As long as we help these guys get back to that magical surplus next year we have done our job. Our service to the punters of Aus might be crap….but we got that surplus. Yay!

My biggest issue with the these campaigns is the assumption that after the last couple of thousand years of government bureaucracies, with all their problems, the current crop of leaders think that they can make them work better simply by giving them less money and telling them to deal with it.

Diggety said :

I don’t understand what is “bad” about efficiency dividends(?)

What is so “bad” is the government does not subject the efficiency dividend to themselves (i.e. the parliamentarians). Let’s have a 4% cut in the size of Cabinet and the number of Ministers thanks. That reduces increased parliamentary allowances and saves a whole lot of money. A 4% reduction in the number of Comcars, or at least mandatory car pooling might help reduce costs – yeah right, like that will get a look in. Actually lets get rid of the Comcars altogether and make them queue for cabs in the cold at Canberra airport like the rest of us! They will then be “encouraged” to share a ride by the taxi queue staff so it’s a win/win all around. What about a 4% reduction in the cost of the Lodge refurbisment – it’s not like they are using the whole house anyway.

Will Penny Wong’s comments about travel cost reductions result in her and her Cabinet colleagues travelling in cattle class on a non-flexible fair with Jetstar or Virgin – or will they continue to travel business class on a fully flexible fare with Qantas and avail themselves of the Chairman’s lounge memberships?

I look forward to some Dept heads developing anatomical fortitude and telling the government they can shove approximately 4% of their new budget initiatives next year ….

It sounds like a lot, but I reckon there are plenty of ways to reduce departmental spending. In the IT space, there is still a lot of staff training that could go (temporarily), for example. There are also the conferences and planning meetings requiring travel (I personally know govt staff who travel internationally every few months business class). Freeze recruitment in some areas for a while, and cut back on stuff like redesigning logos. Reduce the use of consultants and contractors for a while.

Could this add up to 4%? In some places, yes, in others maybe not. As someone who works with a range of public service organisations, I still see plenty of spending that could be turned off. Once we get through the next few years, and the budget is in surplus again, we can turn the tap back on a bit.

amarooresident3 said :

Hypocrisy from politicians is nothing new I guess, but Gary should talk to Joe Hockey about his proposal to cut 12,000 jobs out of the public service before he gets too outraged.

I can’t say the Libs inspire too much confidence however they were upfront and announced they intended to cut 12,000 jobs if they got into govt.

Now, it is one thing to argue the merits of doing that and the effect it would have on the Canberra community however shouldn’t the argument be about the promises made.

The ALP with it’s 3 local representatives was very vocal in making the point that they were going to hold the effeciency dividend and be much kinder to the PS and Canberra. As Gary H. pointed out 14 months later a 2.5% broken promise efficiency dividend.

Diggety – I know a few smaller agencies, which spend a high proportion of funds on staff, that are disproportionately affected. Centrelink can close an office or two, DFAT can wind down an embassy and there is so much that could be gained from Defence that it could fund most of the APS-wide cuts with little pain. But, as Alan Asher pointed out before resigning, the same options are not there for something like the Ombudsman. Any cut comes from the sharp end.
And +1 to DTC and AmarooResident3. Gary H, in particular, should just shut up given his support for the loss of 12,000 jobs and the induced local recession it would create. He’s useless, but the ALP lot are not much better.

Diggety said :

I don’t understand what is “bad” about efficiency dividends(?)

They work if there is a corresponding reduction in workload/programs or if Departments are allowed to cut programs. But since the government sets the programs and the spending on those programs, those amounts cannot be reduced

Therefore, although the ‘dividend’ is 2.5% of the total amount spent by a Department, it actually all needs to be taken from staffing and ‘variable’ costs (such as travel or IT or similar), which results in a reduction in those costs of much more than 2.5%. Or 4%, for next year. 4% may not sound like much, but its (for example) 1 in 25 staff

Most departments could easily point to programs that have too much money (being spent on industry or regional areas or whatever, rather than expenditure in the department) which could be cut without any real political or social impact. But those programs are not the subject of ‘efficiency dividends’.

The other issue is that the government has delegated the problem. It goes to agencies and says ‘cut 4%, except dont cut these areas’ and then makes the agencies do all the hard work and take the blame. If the government wants cuts, it should direct those cuts.

Finally, although most people can point to areas that are overstaffed or under worked, given that the efficiency dividend has been around for 10 (?) years, there arent many easy answers left. Cut staff, reduce service levels (as Customs did recently), reduce expertise (resulting in botched programs…). As I said at the start, if you cut staff and cut workload, that is fine. Cut staff and not workload – well, why would people stay in the (relatively) underpaid public service

“– She is advising agencies to cut back on hospitality, advertising and consultants. Also asking that they use teleconferencing more.”

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2011/10/the-qantas-challenge/#comment-103237

Hypocrisy from politicians is nothing new I guess, but Gary should talk to Joe Hockey about his proposal to cut 12,000 jobs out of the public service before he gets too outraged.

I don’t understand what is “bad” about efficiency dividends(?)

Here comes Mully

PS: <3 Annabel Crabb…

Who wants a package?